Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 14:11:00 -0400
From: Luther Blissettt <blissett-AT-unpopular.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: AUT: GA shit


>I think there's something rather patronizing in Luther's attack on free
>speech.  He writes that by tearing down or obliterating graffiti calling
>for the death of "slags who go with blacks" he is helping a white mother
>of a mixed race child who would feel "intimidated, scared and worried"
>by such a message.

This is not a hypothetical example: she did feel intimidated.

>I'm all for writing over fascist and racist graffiti
>with one's own message.  I think that's part of the whole graffiti
>thing. But Luther, it troubles me that when you look around for an
>example of the harm racist graffiti does, you light on that
>quintessential symbol of helplessness, a mother and child.

I'm sorry it just popped up in my daily life a couple of weeks ago

>  Why do you assume that the white mother of a mixed race child cannot
>obliterate racist graffiti on her own if it bothers her so much?

She did not have a scourer with her, however she did ring up the Docklands
Light Rail company on whose vehicle it was and ask them to remove it. She
does not usually complain about graffitti.

>   Why, even, do you assume it makes her feel "intimidated, scared and
>worried"  as opposed to enraged and energized?

She told me so. It also made her feel enraged - but I'm not sure about
'energised'. I just rang her up and she laughed. I will not repeat the
comment she made about you as I do not want to descend to name calling

>In the US there are many cases in which the painting of swastikas  and racist
>>slogans have led to community action, the awakening of passive people . I'm
>not >arguing for racist graffiti, obviously.  But  I am troubled that you deny
>>agency to so many:  portraying yourself as the chivalrous defender of
>powerless,frightened women and racial minorities who can do nothing for
>themselves.

I am not. I am worried that those who espose the defense of free speech to
fascists, nazis etc are precisely trying to curb those attacked by these
people from defending themselves in a the powerful, vigorous and indeed
yes, energising way which they have shown themselves capable of countless
times.

>   The thing about denying speech (as opposed to debating it) is that it
>does not, in fact, get rid of those noxious ideas. Germany has laws
>against nazi-type propaganda; France has laws against Holocaust denial.
>Both have big fascist movements all the same.

I hoped I had made it clear that I was neither in favour defending nor
denying free speech to those with obnoxious views, simply making the point
that:

a) I find it obnoxious that people should advertise fundraising events for
supporters of Green Anarchist on this list bearing in mind the offensive
nature of their poliotical programme.

b) That I find the justification of such a posting in terms of free speech
inadequate

c) That the whole notion of free speech implies a seperation between speech
acts and other acts which may serve lawyers seeking out legal niceties but
is of little use politically.

d) That in practical terms the defense of free speech for nazis leads to
active collaboration with nazis - precisely what has happened with Pierre
Guillaume the ex-ultra-leftist who now hangs around with neo-nazis
pretending that Guy Debord himself really believed that the gas chambers
never existed but was too scared to say so.

>Especially in the age of the Web, horrible ideas can always find
>currency. Better bring them out into the light and vanquish them with
>real information than suppress them and add to their glamor.

I feel the question here is more what is the relation between ideas and
people's actions. It is not that I am against using reason to show how
ridiculpus this or that ideology truly is. But I am aware of the
limitations of that approach.

Please note the title of the original article which appeared in GA: 'The
Irrationalists'. Steve Booth carefully avoids mentioning that the Oklahoma
bombers were neo-nazis taking their idea from William Pearce's 'Turner
Diaries'. He carefully avoids discussing that the AUM cult was a big
business with assets of $140 million and an annual income of $10 million,
that it was deeply antisemitic and told its followers that there was an
immanent apocalypse. My albeit brief commentary on his article did
precisely use reason to show why GA's views were abhorent. My intervention
was precisely to "vanquish them with real information" yet rather than
agreeing that such adverts have no place on this list, some people have
been defending the posting on the basis of free speech - i,e, inviting
participants to put all sorts of crap up, that's fine we are all liberals.

I'd much rather have a list which developed some critical ideas rather than
badgering us to support anarcho-fascists. What might be interesting to
discuss is why certain sections of those who identify themselves as
anarchists have taken up far right positions just when looser notions of
'leaderless resistance' and 'klanarchism' have spread through the far right
particularly in the U.S.? I would be interested in some comments on this.


http://www.unpopular.demon.co.uk
http://www.dsnet.it/qwerg/blissett/bliss0.htm
http://www.skatta.demon.co.uk
http://www.geocities.com/~johngray




     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---